Copyright Information

8 articles on this Page

OLD LETTERS.

News

Cite

Share

OLD LETTERS. Looking o'er old letters, are you ? What strange memories they wake, As some ye pass quite lightly by, And some with reverend touch ye take. A change o'erspreads your features, too, And pallid quite your lips have grown, And tear-drops tricle o'er your cheeks— Say, what past grief do you bemoan ? It was a loving mother's words, Penn'd to you when in distant lands, Praying that God would ye preserve From harm amid those stranger bands It was her last, and the loved words Are deeply graven in your heart; And while ye tread this vale of tears Ye ne'er will with that treasure part. Looking o'er old letters are you ? What strange memories ye wake, As some ye pass quite lightly by, And some with reverend touch ye take. A little pile from early friends, Words written in the flush of youth Prize them though couched in simplest terms, They breathe of innocence and truth. One holds a tress of golden hair; Ye press it to your lips, ah, why ? It was your first bright dream of love, But the sweet bud bloomed but to die. You've breathed full many a vow since then You've cherished many a maiden fair Yet when your thoughts are heavenward led Ye think an angel waits ye there. Looking o'er old letters, are you ? What strange memories they wake, Of friends beloved, who ye once thought Ye never, never could forsake. They're gone, ye know not where they dwell, Passed from your very thoughts away Yet those old letters bring them back As fresh as 'twere but yesterday. Oh, bum not one, though soiled and worn, They are with bygone memories fraught; And lessons grave of life forsooth. May be by those dumb missives taught. They teach us what is friendship worth, How absence severs many a tie They show how the affections change, As years go fleeting, rolling by. EMILY STEPHENS.

MERTHYR BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

News

Cite

Share

MERTHYR BOARD OF GUARDIANS. The weekly meeting of this Board was held on Saturday last, and there were present:—Messrs. Lewis Lewis (in the chair). R. H. Rbys, D. Williams, E. W Scale, D. Rosser, J. Williams, J. Edwards. G. Davies, R. Thomas, J. Rhys, J. W. Russell, G. Martin, W. Jones, T. Evans, R. Wil- liams, and the Rev. J. Griffith. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. THE CONTRACTS. The Clerk read the contracts for the supplies advertized for, which had been adopted by the committee. The report recommended that the purchase of potatoes should be left to the master for about another month. Mr. Thomas said this was a bad time of the year to pur- chase potatoes. The Clerk That is the reason the committee leave it to the master. The report of the Finance Committee was then read. Mr. R. H. Rhys remarked that the BoarJ were paying JE7 16s. for a room in Dowlais. in which the relieving of- ficer attended once a week to relieve paupers, and they were also paying 16s. a quarter for a place for vaccination. Mr. Thomas thought it was monstrous that so much should be paid for a room which was only used once a week. Mr. Jones, the relieving officer, said the letter of the room was thinking of asking for an advance. Mr. R. H. Rhys Would not a house ^o ? Mr. Jones It would not accommodate me. Mr. Thomas Do they charge you extra for fire there ? Mr. Jones They do not. The Clerk Could not the vaccination also be dlilne there ? Mr. Jones The vaccination is done in a little room off this school-room. Mr. Thomas I think we should not pay for two rooms, for I think one would do very well (hear, hear). Mr. R. H. Rhys: I believe Mr. Edwards is one of the trustees (laughter). Mr. Edwards Yes, I am one of the trustees. The matter then dropped, and Mr. Scale remarked that the beef contracted for did not seem to be according to the kind mentioned in the adver- tisements. The advertisements asked for legs of beef cut close to the rump. Mr. Thomas was afraid there was something in the ad- vertisements likely to mislead the people. Mr. Scale What is the use of advertising then? A Member We couldn't do business without that (hear). Mr. Rhys: It refers them sure to the clerk. Mr. Thomas It looks rather strange that the papers say legs of beef, and the specification says sides and legs cut close to the rump. Mr. Scale My belief is that you have been using bones for the last three or four quarters. Mr. R. H. Rhys The fact is this, we used to have the legs of beef cut close to the rump, and we found the master was obliged to be constantly in the habit of having other parts of beef, and it was then changed to sides. The sides are more beneficial, and will be always the cheaper (hear). Mr. Scale That is quite a mistake. The Chairman: Really, you are talking now about things which it is the duty of the Visiting Committee to examine. Mr. Scale: But they don't do so. The Chairman I always do, and when I find the meat or butter is not according to the sample, J always report it. Mr. Thomas All that is very right; but the Visiting Committee are not supposed to know what the persons have contracted for—they can only tell whether the thing sup- plied is good or not. I agrte with what Mr. Scale has said that it ought to be according to the advertisement, but I think that may tend to mislead people. However, as this contract is made now, we had better pass it over, but let us see that things will be better done in future also, you hear what has been said by Mr. Rhys, that the people themselves have become tired of having the same pieces of beef always, and they wish to have them altered. I think we ought to get what is most economical and the best for the paupers (hear, hear). Mr. Scale But you get a lot of bones now. Mr. R. H. Rkys But the bones make excellent broth. Mr. Thomas: I don't think we can alter the cantract now after it has been accepted by the committee. IJcertainly think we ought to be guided by what the master says of the people getting tired of the same pieces always, and I beg to move that the contract be accepted as it is, subject to the approval of the master. The Clerk That is already done. Mr. Thomas: I would like it to be done for the future also. Mr. Meredith here entered the room, and Mr. R. H. Rhys asked him which would he think the most beneficial for the paupers, the sides of beef, or the legs cut close to the rump ? Mr. Meredith We always find that the sides are as good as the other, because we have to make a good deal of beef tea here, and we want the neck bits for that. We now make about nine pints of beef tea every day. Mr. Thomas 1 hat was the reason it was altered before. Mr. R. H. Rhys 1 really think it would make no dif- ference. The Master: It makes no difference to me were it not for the beef tea. The matter then dropped. THE "ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE INFIRMARY. The Clerk read the following letter from the Poor Law Board in relation to this subject:— Poor Law Board, Whitehall, "19th June, 1866. Sir,—I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknow- ledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inst,, forwarding for their approval the plan of certain alterations and addi- tion." which the guardians, at an estimated cost of £624. propose to make to the infirmary of the Merthyr Tydfil Union Workhouse. The Bo..rd have had the plan under their consideration and do not see any objection to the proposed reconstruc- tion of the four water closets to the frontwards of the infir- mary, but desire to suggest for the better ventilation of them that two iron air-bricks, one opposite the other, should be placed near the ceiling of each closet, in the positions marked respectively in pencil on the plan. With regard to the two new fever wards intended to be erected over the two existing ones, the Board consider that the capacity of the four wards, each of which is proposed to be 21 feet long, 16 ft. wide, and 10 ft. high, is insufficient to accommodate ten patients in each, as, according to the plan. appears to be contemplated. The Board recommend that the wards should be made, instead of ten feet, 11 feet in height, and that not more than five patients should be placed in any of them at one time. The total accommoda- tion would then be twenty patients. Should it be required to accommodate a greater number than that, it will be ne- cessary so increase the proposed area of the wards accord- ingly, keeping the height eleven feet. With respect to the approximation of the ward, unless a second stair-case can be provided, it is desirable, in order that the classification may be preserved, that the two new wards should be as- signed to the exclusive use of male patients, and the two present ones to female patients. Lastly, it is desirable for the purpose of ventilation, that openings, say two feet in diameter, should be made, one opposite to each side win- dow, both in the wall dividing the two present wards, and proposed division wall between the two new wards, fur- ther, a fan-light hung on centres and provided with stops, so that it may always be open one inch, is desirable over the door to each of the present wards, and over both doors to each of the proposed wards. The Board, subject to the foregoing alterations and sug- gestions, approve of the proposed alterations, and have affixed their seal to the plan accordingly. They return tba plan, and will send to you shortly the requisite form of order for the consent of the guardians to the intended works.—1 am, sir, your obedient servant, "F. James. Esq.. Clerk "ENFIELD, to the Guardians of "Secretary." Merthyr Tydlil Union." Mr. R. H. Rhys But this work is going on now. The Clerk remarked that he had learned from Mr. Harpur that some of the suggestions might be carried out, as the work proceeded. Mr. Thomas thought the suggestions in the letter might as well be adopted, because if not, the commissioners might not in future, be so ready to give their consent (hear, hear). The Clerk said the Poor Law Board were supposed to know a great deal about these matters, and it would be well to adopt their suggestion. Besides that, Mr. Harpur had said there would be no difficulty in doing them as the work proceeded. Mr. R. H. Rbys: I think it ought to be done (hear, hear). Mr. Thomas I think their permission is on the under- standing that these things be done. The Clerk No, not at alL Mr. R. H. Rhys I believe it would be the best plan to leave all to Mr. Harpur. Mr. Scale And let him be told to carry out the instruc- tions of the Poor Law Board (hear, bear). Mr. R. H. Rhys: Was there a schedule of prices accom. panying the plan ? Mr. G. Martin: I think not. Mr. Rosser They may make a material difference in the prices, and it would be better to let Mr Harpur see about it. Mr. Thomas: Suppose Mr. Harpur agrees with the con tractor for all—that would be the beatpltn. Let him be empowered to do so. Mr. R. H. Rhys Yes, I think it would be better to lefvealltohim. The Chairman: I would also like that Mr. Harpur should attend occasionally to the masons working here. The Clerk I met him this morning, and he said he had condemned a lot of stones in use here. The Chairman I know they have put in quarry stones in the front here, which are thinner than some paving stones I have got. It is a most ridiculous thing to see stones used there not six inches thick. Mr. Martin Mr. Harpur should not allow them. Mr. R. H. Rhys: 11 would be well to direct his atten- tion to it (hear, hear). The Chairman: It is not right to have them robbing us in this way. Mr. Rosser Have you reported it to Mr. Harpur? Chairman: No I only saw it this morning. Rev. J. Griffith I saw him this morning, and he said he had condemned a lot of the stones. Mr. Edwards That is the result of not giving the con- tract to a man who would do the the work well. Chairman I don't say anything at all about that; I say the materials are not right. Mr. Edwards: The present contractor is only a mason— he is not a builder. Mr. R. H. Rhys: What are half the builders in Merthyr? Mr. Martin There is not a better mason in Merthyr than O'Neill. He understands his work well, and can do it if he likes. Mr. Thomas If he does not we can stop his contract. Chairman: I have no hesitation in saying that he is doinar bad work there, and if he were to do such for me I would stop him immediately. air. Martin That is the fault of those looking over him. He should not be allowed to use material of inferior kind (hear, hear). The Chairman: I suppose Mr. Harpur would better be informed of it. Mr. D. Williams Hr. Harpur has too much to do. The matter dropped. DEPUTY REGISTRAR. A letter was read from Mr. Ed. Martin, proposing Mr. Rees Davies as the new deputy registrar of births and deaths, and the proposition was adopted. "LENDING" RELIEF. A bill for £29 was handed in from Dr. Creswell, parish surgeon at Dowlais, and it included one item ot £5 for me- dical attendance given by him to a man named John Lewis, who met with an accident some time ago in Dowlais, in consequence of which he was for some time an inmate of the Union at Merthyr. Mr. Scale thought the man was not a pauper at all, and therefore Mr. Creswell had no claim on the Board. Mr. Thomas If relief was given to him by us by way of a loan" we are doubtless liable to Mr. Cresswell for his charges. We are certainly liable in this case, in my opinion. Mr. R. H. Rhys The man was brought into the work- house, and we recognized him as a pauper at once. Mr. Jones, the relieving officer, explained how the man, who was a mason, met with the accident for which Mr. Cresswell attended him. Mr. Scale asked was the man a pauper when he was taken into Dowlais surgery ? Mr. Jones said he was not. Mr. Scale Suppose he was taken to some other doctor but the parish doctor. Mr. Jones: He would then send him on to the parish doctor. The Chairman: Mr. Cresswell was bound to relieve him. The Clerk remarked that according to one of the articles, Dr. Cresswell was, at least, entitled to the half of what he claimed. Mr. Thomas: Then I say, he ought to get the £2 10s. Mr. Scale still did not believe the man was recognized as a pauper. Mr. Thomas would like to know what was a. pauper, ex- cept a man who came into the house because he had no where else to go to. The Clerk: This is a case in which you can allow £2 10a., and you can authorize me to write to the Poor Law Board, and get their sanction. Mr. Thomas: How long has this man left the Work- house? Mr. Jones About six weeks. Mr. R. H. Rhys I beg to move that the £5 be paid to Mr. Cresswell, because he is entitled to it. The Chairman: This is a bill from 1864, and I think that was a long time to leave it out-standing. It ought to have been sent in more regularly. Mr. R. H. Rhys: It makes no difference. This only amounts to £29. Mr. Thomas Was not this man relieved by way of a loan ? Mr. Jones: Certainly. Mr. Thomas Under that understanding the man ought to pay for all those expenses (hear, hear). The Chairman What is your opinion, Mr. James ? Mr. James (the Clerk): In my opinion Dr. Cresswell is entitled to the £2 10s. Mr. R. H. Rhys My motion is that he be paid the J65. Mr. J. W. Russell: I second that. Mr. Scale I beg to move as an amendment that the Clerk be instructed to communicate with the Poor Law Board, telling them the circumstances of the case, and then take their opinion whether the money can be legally paid or not, and whether the man was a pauper or not, and let the payment of the bill be adjourned till we receive an an- swer. Mr. Rosser seconded the amendment. Mr. J. W. Russell thought it was a very queer thing that the Board could not to attend their own business. Mr. Mfu-tin Indeed, I think so. Mr. R. H. Rhys: You know Mr. James says he is en- titled to be paid. In answer to the Chairman, Mr. Meredith, the master, said that when John Lewis was brought into the house he had only 7^d. in his pocket. Mr. Thomas What appears to me very mysterious is, how it was the Board relieved him by way of a loan. Mr. Jones: So as to put him in a position to pay it back. Mr. R. H. Rhys, in reply to Mr. Scale's amendment, said, he thought it would be very unwise to trouble the Poor Law Board on this subject. Upon another similar occasion they did apply to them, they gave a very vague reply, but the result was that they led the Guardians to understand that they were in favour of the me-dical man being paid. He (Mr. Rhys) thought it would be very foolish to adjourn this question, and he was of opinion that it would be much better to decide it at onc« (hear, hear). Mr. Scale I believe the statement was not fuller made at the time of the other case. Mr. Rosser: I think we may settle the matter by pay- ing one half. Mr. Scale Don't compromise. Mr. Thomas That would not be compromising. The Chairman I should like to settle the matter now. We ought not to be always appealing to the Poor Law Board but we ought to be able to manage our own busi- ness. The Rev. Mr. Griffith Medical men, as a rule, are not always well paid, and I think we ought to support Mr. Rhys' motion and pay the £ 5. Mr. Scale Then every man who comes here and breaks his leg is to be paid for I After some futher little disgussion, the motion and amendment were put,. The Guardians voted as follows — For the motion—Messrs. Lewis Lewis, J. Williams, G. Davies, G. Martin, L. Rhys, J. W. Russell, J. Williams, J. Griffiths, and R. H. Rhys—9. For the amendment- Messrs. E. W, Scale, J. Edwards, D. Rosser, Rees Wil- liams, D. Williams, S. Evans, R. Thomas, and W. Jones—8. The motion was, therefore, passed by a majority of one vate. Mr. Thomas I now beg to move that our clerk or re- lieving officer, or whoever should do it, be instructed to take proceedings against John Lewis to recover those charges. Mr. R. H. Rhys seconded the proposition, which, after some little conversation was passed. THE NURSE. The clerk read a letter from the nurse, requesting to have her train fare to and from Merthyr at the time she came here, paid. She said she was requested to attend a meet- ing of the Board, to which she came, and paid her fare to and from. As she had to go back again at the time of her election, she hoped the gentlemen of the Board would con- sider it due to her, and allow it in addition to her two months salary. The nurse complained of not having the assistance of another nurse. She found her work here much greater than it was before, and she should say her present salary was not equivelent to her duties, which she endeavoured to perform to the best of her ability, and which she would also do as long as she remained, which she hoped would be for a long time (hear, hear). Mr. Thomas: What has been her general conduct since she came here ? Mr. Meredith (the master): Very good, indeed, sir, (hear, hear). The Clerk I believe she had to come here twice. The Chairman It is not much. An order was made on the clerk to pay what the nurse required. THE MASTER'S REPORT was read, and it showed that there had been admitted during the week 12, born 0, discharged 6, died 3, remain- ing at present 208 corresponding week last year 203 in- crease on the year 5. The Guardians then proceeded to the relief of the paupers.

ABERDARE POLICE COURT.

News

Cite

Share

ABERDARE POLICE COURT. TUESDAY.—(Before J. C. Fowler and E. J. Davies, Esqs.) Assaulting a Policeman.—John Howells and Daniel Rees, two very pugilistic-looking wights, were summoned for assaulting P.C. Morgan whilst in the execution of his duty. The policeman was on duty in High-street on Saturday last, when he heard some rather loud talk pro- ceeding from Dare Court. He went there, and found both the defendants in the act of fighting. He was at first in- clined to interfere as a peace-maker, and be separated the defendants. Howells, however, struck him a hard blow cn the eye, and also gave him several pokeø" about the body. He was thrown on his knees, and while in that posture, Rees also delivered him some tidy thrusts. The consequence of this conduct was that both the worth ies were fined 40s. including costs. Howells paid the cash, but Rees preferred going to the stone jug at Swansea for 21 days. Thirsty Souls.—William Jones and J'ohn Morgan were found in a rather "spirited" mood in CairdifF-street, on the 25th inst., by P.C. Jennings. They were accommodated with lodgings in the lock-up till to-day, when they were fined 5s. and costs each in default, they might take cheap apartments at Swansea gaol for seven da ys. A Lenient Prosecutor. —A red-headeoi customer calling himself William Phillips, was charged with wilfully cut- ting and wounding a young man named James Pritchard. The parties had come to some arrangement outside of the court, when defendant said he would pay all expenses if the prosecution was not proceeded with. Complainant wil- lingly agreed to this proposal, and the defendant was there- fore discharged. A Riotous Inebriate.—Thomas Price, who was rather heavy and noisy at the Trap-road, on tlie 20th inst., was fined 5s. and costs. Trespassers.—A number of young men. and old were fined for trespassing on a fence belonging to Mr. Bruce Price, at Mountain Ash. It seems the fence leads into the wood where John Davis was recently killed, and many people go there to see the spot where the crime was committed. Notices, however, were posted up prohibiting such tres- passing, and several of those were torn down. Amongst those fined to-day were—Jonathan Jones, Id. compensa- tion, 2s. 6d. fine and costs: James Jones, Id. compensation Id. tine and costs; David Joseph, Id. comjwns&tiion, 2a 6d. fine and costs John Thomas, Id. compensation, Is. fine and costs; Thos. Thomas, Id. compensation, 2s. 6d. fine and costs; and John West, Id. compensation, Id. tine and costs. Assault.—Mary Jones summoned Mary Phillips for an assault. The case was adjourned till next week. Another Inebriate.—John Griffiths, for being drunk and riotous on Monday morning, was fined 7s. 6d. including costs. IMPORTANT CASE OF INTIMIDATION BY COLLIERS. Seven men (principally hauliers from the Dunraven colliery, near Rhonnda), named John Hay, Thomas Lewis, John Thomas, Robert Williams, David Lewis, John Green, and Samuel Jenkins, a young boy, were summoned for having unlawfully, by threats and intimidation, endeavour- ed to force one Patsy Cook, alias Reardun, James Sullivan, and James M'Carthy, who were workmen hired and em. ployed by the Dunraven United Collier's Company (Limited), in their trade and business of coal workers, in the capacity of labours, to depart from the said hiring and employment contrary to the form of the statue in such case. Mr. Smith appeared for the prosecution, and he thought it might, perhaps, simplify the case if the prisoners were inclined to admit the offence. The prisoners pleaded guilty, and Mr. Smith then proceeded to state the facts of the case. He said the charge arose from circumstances which occur- red on Sunday night last, followed up by other matters which took place on the Monday night following. As there might be some question as to the facts of what had occurred on the Monday, he would simply confine himself to the Saturday, although, had the case gone on he should have told the whole affair. On Saturday night, about ten o'clock, the whole of the defendants, in company with some forty or fifty persons, went first to the house of a person named Cronin, an Irishman, living on the Dunraven property, at the colliery. They threw stones at the door in the first place, and the man Patsy Cooke was in the house with Cronin. At that time, a letter, which he (Mr. Smith) held in his hand, was thrown into the house, and that was immediately followed by the defendants, with others, going into the house and asking how many Irishmen lodged there. The letter, therefore, would be evidence against all the parties, as they were all there with the one purpose. The letter con- tained some disgusting expressions, and he (Mr. Smith) would read part of it only. It was to the following effect:— "June 23rd, 1866.—Dear Timbers,—We have sent you these few lines to inform you that you are to leave this place (Paddys' Row), in less than one hour; and the lodgers except the family. So no more at present from the Officer of the Black army. The family must go on next Saturday night, and you must look sharp about it." [Some other expres- sions were added to the letter, which were very filthy indeed, and totally unfit for publication.] Mr. Smith pro- ceeded to say that of course the Black Army," unfortu- nately, was a name not unfamiliar to the people of that district. There was nothing done at Cronin's house but, almost before Patsy Reardon (or Cooke) could get to the house where he lodged, the seven defendants, with the other forty or fifty persons went to the house of Skinner, who was the schoolmaster of Dunraven. They first asked, "How many Irishmen have you lodging here ?" He said, Three." They said, You must send them out or we will send them away in less than five minutes." He then remonstrated with them—more particularly with Green—and asked them to go away. They said, If you don't send them out we will drive them out; we won't have them working here; they work under wages, and they shan't work in the valley at all. There are so many of them they will soon fill our places." In consequence of that conversation the Irishmen, sitting in the house- one of whom was eating his supper— became alarmed, and the more so that some of these men actually got into the house and there repeated their threats. Eventually the Irishmen went outside of the house, and when they got there the man Green had stones in his hand, as also had the little boy. That was the reason why the latter was here, as, were it not for that, the prosecutors should not have brought so young a child. Therefore, it was evident some real violence was intended, unless the Irishmen acquiesced to the defendants' wish. When the Irishmen went out they were put in front of the body of men, and driven from the work. These words were then said, We give you one minute to go, if you go quietly no one will touch you, but if you don't go quietly we will make you go." While the defendants, with those along with them, were proceeding through the works, the underground agent, Mr. Davies, heard of the disturbance. He at once went out, and seeing what was going on he jumped into the midst of the crowd of fellows, but, with the cowardice of men who knew they had done wrong, these men shrunk back from the agent. He seized one of the Irishmen, and attempted to stop the others. They, however, ran away, but he followed them, and brought them back by main force through the crowd of fellows, and sent them to their houses. Almost immediately after wards the policemen were brought upon the scene, and some of the fellows were seized. A policeman had a con- versation with Hay, which it was important the Bench should know, as it showed there was one common mtentiou of driving these men away. He said to Hay, What's this disturbance about?" "Oh," said Hay, "There is no dis- turbance at alL" "I heard," said the other, "you want to drive the Irishmen away." No," answered Hay, "we have only given them notice." Then, of course, there was no doubt that this was the kind of notice they intended to give, and it certainly was very rough and improper. He (Mr. Smith) was afraid if he went into the proceedings of Monday it would aggravate the case against the defendants, which he was not desirous of doing. Mr. Thomas Joseph (who was present) was the manager of the company, and he was desirous peace should be preserved, and he -vould be satisfied, if their worships thought such a course would be consistent with their duty, to have them bound over to keep the peace for some considerable period. It was a matter for the Bench, so far as the prosecutors were con- cerned, as they had no desire to act too harshly towards the men. It was certainly a most improper proceeding, and had resulted in much loss to the company, as the work was now, in fact, stopped. The colliers, no doubt, were at work, but then those men, who were principally hauliers, caused their part of the work to be stopped, in consequence of which the company would suffer severely. The mis- conduct was renewed on Monday morning, and it was only by the presence of a number of policemen and the cool and collected conduct of the officer who was there—who stood the rage of one hundred of these fellows—and also the application for this summons, which took place yester- day, that the riot was stopped. This morning all was again quiet. Therefore, if their worships thought it suf- ficient, the proprietors would be satisfied if the men were bound over to keep the peace for some long period. As far as they themselves were concerned they believed the object would be accomplished by their being bound over to keep the peace. He (Mr. Smith) had all the witnesses here, and if the Bench would wish to hear them he could examine them. His Worship I have consulted with Mr. Davies, and we think the boy may be looked upon as a mere instrument in the hands of others, and it is not worth while now to punish him. The boy was then discharged, and His Worship proceeded to say the Bench had such a strong feeling in favour of the freedom of labour, and the right of every man to use his freedom in seeking work, that he was afraid they would find it hard to accede to the sug- gestion of the prosecutors in this case. At the same time, they toped this was an isolated case—a case that had arisen in a remote valley, having no connection with any other case, and that as it had arisen, so might it terminate —a solitary case standing by itself. In that hope, and at- taching, of course, much weight to the suggestion of the prosecution, and believing that if they acceded to that sug- gestion no harm to the public would accrue, they adopted the proposed course, and called upon the defendants to find a surety each in the sum of £5 for their good behaviour for the next twelve months, and also be bound of themselves in their recognizances to the same amount. In default of their finding such surety, the Bench thought it necessary they should be committed until they did find such. With regard to the little boy, they thought he was probably led by those who knew better, and, probably, such evil influ- ence was brought to bear on him that he could hardly be considered as a free agent in the affair. They now warned him never again to allow anyone to urge him into such actions, and they hoped this would be a warning to him for life. The required sureties were found. Cattle Plague Case.—In the case of Rees Beynon, his Worship said -.—With regard to Beynon's case, I was pre- sent at the Petty Sessions at Neath on Friday, and con- sulted with the magistrates present, and also the superin- tendent of police. They both concurred in telling me that they have, from time to time, made arrangements for in- specting cattle in that district, and even now they still continue to do so, and intend to do so owing to the diffi- culties arising in arresting the progress of trains at certain points, where they otherwise would have wished to inspect cattle. Under these circumstances, I think it may be con- sidered that Beynon did not offend against the regulations, and I dismiss the case.

TREDEGAR PETTY SESSIONS.

News

Cite

Share

TREDEGAR PETTY SESSIONS. FRIDAY, JUNE 15.-( Before the Rev. E. Leigh and Captain Marsh.) Cruelty to a Horse.—David Herrin was charged with this offence-—P.C Lewis saw the horse in a very bad state with a lump on the shoulder, it had been worked in a tram. Fined 5s. and costs. Sureties.—Sarah Lewis v. David Lewis. This was a case in which the wife sought to be protected from the violence of her husband. P.C. 37 proved leaving a copy of the sum- mons at the defendant's lodgings on the 12th instant. Adjourned for a warrant to bring up the husband. Price v. Webber.—Defendant was charged with quitting his house and removing his goods and chattels to avoid. dis. traint for rent. Adjourned for a fortnight to enable com- plainant to produce witnesses to substantiate the charge. The Pig Nuisance again.—Benjamin Thomas, Bonner Thomas, and William Bishop, were charged with allowing three pigs to stray on neighbonrs' lands and were fined 5s each and costs—This ought to stop the nuisance. Sureties.—Patrick Parker v. tHawker. Mr. Harris for the complainant.— In this case the defendant was charged with going into the house of Parker and abusing two of his children.—Catherine Parker a little girl about 11 years old said the old woman came into the house and hit her twice on the back and thumped her as hard as she was able. —Mr Leigh to defendant: You are neighbours and when the children quarrel you are very wrong to interefere. The case is dis- missed each to pay her own costs. Bastardy. — W illiams e- Josiah Foxall.—Complainant sworn: I am single woman I have had a child, and Josiah Foxall is the father and no one else. David .James sworn I am a Shoemaker at Pontaber Bargoed I saw the complainant and defendant together by my house on the 1st of December last about 10 o'clock they had some high words between them and went towards the station.— The Bench: Is this all the evidence ? Complainant: If you will adjourn it I will find plenty of evidence. Mr Leigh We adjourn it to this day fortnight.. The Iron stealing case.—P.C. Lewis proved service of the summons on Thomas Edwards who appeared last week at Blackwood, and as he did not now appear the case was adjourned for his apprehension.—Warren and the two Beddoes were present. Assault.—Morris o. Jenkins.—Complainant sworn I am an engine driver; Jenkins came into my place and called me a d —d lazy b r; he did it twice over the pumps had failed a wedge and had come out of the ay I put it right; Jenkins asked me why I did not send for him at first. A witness proved hearing Jenkins call Morris a lazy b r he also saw Jenkins collar Morris.—A witness for the defence said he heard all and would be "exponsible" that only few words occurred in the engine house. Dismissed and the costs divided. Malicious damage.—The Beaufort Iron Co. against John Morgan.—Defendant admitted setting the pit in motion but said no damage was done.—Mr Harris for the company said the pit in question was only used every other day to let coal down, to be sent to Pontygof; when not in use it was fastened by a brake. Defendant pulled out a screw and let the pit going and some damage was done by friction. D. Powell, a haulier, proved seeing Morgan unscrew t1a. brake a.nd leave the pit go; he also came on in the evening 'vhen the witness told him he (Morgan) would get a noise. David Davies landlord of the pit said the pit was screwed fast when he left it and was let go by Morgan, he could not say how much damage was done.—H. Jones said he was in the employ of the Beaufort Iron Co. If the scotches had come off the damage might have been £100, as it was damage to the extent of 20s was done—Ordered to pay 10s damages and 10s. costs. Stealign Flannel.—Jones v. Matilda Farr.—Jones sworn The prisoner was at my shop at Briery Hill about the 5th of June I was packing up some goods to return to Mr Elworthy the prisoner said she was going towards the station and would take the parcel to the station knowing her I gave her the parcel; a few weeks after that I heard I from the traveller who said he had not received the flannel; I then called at the house of the prisoner and asked what she had done with the flannel; she said she gave it to I Mr Richmond; I saw Mr Richmond and he denied having re- ceived the flannel; saw prisoner again she then said she did not know who she gave it to afterwards she said she had given it to Mr Reynolds the carrier from Tredegar to Ebb w Vale; the value of the flannel is .£215; 9d.; Reynolds also said he had not seen the parcel. —Thomas Richmond I am a carrier between Ebbw Vale, Tredegar, and Mer- thyr I never received any flannel from the prisoner at any time.—P.S. Williams sworn I served the summons per- sonally on the 12th instant. The prisoner admitted to me that she had received the flannel and had given it to Rich- mond and her husband saw her give it.—Mr Farr said: I am Postman to Mr Darby and go regularly back and forwrd four times a day to Ebbw Vale 1 saw my wife give Richmond the parcel and heard him say all right the I prisoner was then duly cautioned and said I gave the flannel to Richmond and have a witness to prove it.—The prisoner was then committed.—Her husband's bail was accepted for her appearance at Usk.

MERTHYR COUNTY COURT.

News

Cite

Share

MERTHYR COUNTY COURT. (Before His Honor Judge Falconer.) The usual monthly sitting of the County Court for this district, undttr his Honour Judge Falconer, commenced on Monday," the 18th current, and the list contained:-Ori- ginal plaints, 678; adjourned do., 15; summons after judgment, 139; adjourned do., 40; interpleaders, 3; bank- rupts, 3; total, 881. From these we select such v are of average interest to the public generally, or calculated to afford warning and instruction to all classes of the com- munity. MONDAY. Walters v. Fear.—This was a claim of Sl Is 6d. for drapery goods, alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to de- fendant's wife, who admitted that she owed 5s. 3d. The case was a sad one, as evidencing that hard ingratitude which tends more than aught else to blunt the sympathies and check the flow of the milk of human kindness so gene- rally observable from the one to the other in the humbler walks of life. The plaintiff, a young man of somewhat superior attainments (in the employ of the Merthyr Gas Company) with his wife, some six months ago, went to lodge in defendant's house. She was taken ill. and in a fortnight after the birth of a still-born child she died. During her sufferings the defendant's wife acted the part of the good Samaritan, attended upon her day and night, min- istered to her necessities, and for a week, at her own ex- pense, kept a woman to assist her to look after the house and her own domestic affairs, as her time was wholly occu- pied. Some of the furniture, of the value of £J 4s., was greatly damaged, and indeed rendered worthless. The re- turn for her kindness was this summons, for what the plaintiff chose to call drapery goods and he, in a dogged and stubborn tone, declared he had never employed the de- fendant. His wife was attended by Dr. Dyke, and his as- sistant Mr. Griffiths, also the midwife.—The High Bailiff, in his dry indignant manner, remarked The doctor and the midwife go once or twice a day, but that is not the at- tention a woman in her condition required. Mrs. Fear seems to have waited upon her with such attention as she did require.—Plaintiff: She is the landlady. I did nut engage her, and (producing a book) I sold her these things, and put a price on them coming up to £110s. 6d. She paid me 9s., and I claim the balance.—The defendant's wife, who had listened very quietly, now produced a list of every article which she had received from the plaintiff, divided into two classes, gifts and purchases. The list was almost identical with the plaintiff's book, and she explained that the things in class No. 1 were given to her by the plaintiff for running about for him to procure a box for the child, the parish officers for a coffin and the ground for the poor wife, and the pawn-shop to redeem and get affi- davits of loss of tickets. Class No. 2 were the things which she actually purchased, and on which she acknow- ledged she owed a balance of 5s. 3d. She added plaintiff had never given her a penny as compensation for her own time and exertions, nor did she want it, but he ought to pay for damage. —The Judge, who seemed somen hat be- wildered by the conflicting stories, compared the book and list, which corresponded, the difference being that the list called the gifts were all damaged, though charged for. To plaintiff: Did you pay this woman anything? -No, (in a surly low tone), I never employed her. Well, she has admitted 5s. 3d. to be due, and under all the distressing circumstances, I think you should be satisfied with that sum.—Order for 5s. 3d. to be paid in a month. David V\ illiams, grocer, Dowlais, summoned Edward Henry, and several other creditors for various amounts, and in several of these cases the defendants succeeded in establishing their defence that the debts were barred by the statute of limitation. In the one we have selected the alteration of the date from 1861 to L864 was so palpable tl >t it called forth a very proper reprimand from the judge II.> a scandalous attempt to impose upon the court, and the further remark, that when he first came upon this circuit, he and Judge Herbert found this practice of alteration very common. They both strove, and he had trusted success- fully, to put an end to a system so fearfully injurious to commercial honesty and credit. In dismissing the case, he could not but express his regret that after so many years this instance of the old practice should turn up. Judgment Summons.—Douglas v. Phillips.—It appeared that at the last court the original order had been reduced from 5s. to 3a., but as the defendant had not paid the 3s., plaintiff wanted an order of commitment, but was informed by the Court it had not the power to make conditional orders and commit at the same time. The only course for the plaintiff to pursue was to take out a fresh judgment summons for next court if defendant did not bring in his reduced instalments. Same v. Bryn.—Defendant appeared, and said it was impossible for him to pay 4s. a month. He had a large famiiy (five children), was very weak, and unable to work half his time. — Order reduced to 2s. a month. Same v. Lewis Lloyd.—The wife, a miserably clad and wretched looking woman, wlth tearful eyes and whining accents, declared that all her poor old man earned was 7s 6d. per week, and out of that they had to pay 14s. a month for house and coal to the Dowlais Iron Company.— This statement seemed to the judge something ike a camel in the eye of a needle. Somehow he could not swallow it, and adjourned the case to next court for proof of the wages actually received by defendant and his stoppages. Thomas Davies was summoned by David Jones for ar- rears of ground rent, which he declared he did not owe, and produced a lot of receipts, which apparently proved his assertion. Two of these, however, plaintiff declared to be forgeries. They were marked with a cross and his name. He could write, and did not require to use a mark.—Smith, the father-in-law of defendant, volunteered his evidence, and said that Ebenezer wrote the receipts, as plaintiff was too drunk to do it himself. He added, he got his rent every time he came. I know he did my daughter told me so. The defendant saying there was another witness, and the receipts being very suspicious, his Honour adjourned the case to the Wednesday in the July court for defendant to produce his other witness. William Thomas, late of the Bush Inn, Dowlais, ostler, appeared cn a judgment summons to show cause why he did not pay his landlady a balance of £1 13s. 9d., upon an order made against him for £2 14s. 9d. for lodging. The order was 10s. a month; he had paid £1, leaving this balance.- Committed for 12 days. Order kept back three weeks to allow him time to bring in 10s. TUESDAY. Bankrupts.— Supported by Mr. Plews.—Mr. Lewis, of Cefncoedycymmer, appeared for his discharge. There was no opposition—no assets. After the usual formal ques- tions, his Honour granted the discharge to be issued in 30 days, if not appealed against. The cases -of John Trotman and Roger Price were ad- journed to the July court, as the accounts had not been tiled in time. Craig v. Thomas Evans.— £ 1 1L.-The plaintiff, it ap- peared, had purchased the rounds of Mr. Cochrane, and on the books this amount appeared still due. The defendant made the usual defence—that he had never dealt with Mr. Craig. He added: I was summoned here fifteen months ago and was dismissed. —Mr. Craig explained that that was through a mistake in his name and address. The wife said I and my husband told him that if he could give us any satisfaction he would pay—The Judge (to defend- ant) You cot off last time through a mistake. Mr. Craig will now put that to rights. His assistant proves the payment by you on account, aud the order will be 3s. a month.—Defendant: 1 have the bill at home.—Wife I'll produce it to-morrow.—The Judge: I will look at anything bearing on the case. Forrester v. Pollard.—Claim for £15s., value of a shawl. —Mrs. Pollard appeared to defend, and declared that the plaintiff had been in the habit of dealing with her, and she with him; that there was an old account between them and 5s. due to him, which she paid. He afterwards impor- tuned her for an order, and she told him to let her have a particular kind of shawl. He brought one that did not suit her, and she told him so at the time but he left the shawl, promising «to change it for another such as she wanted. That promise he did not keep, and she had to buy one in the town. In a fortnight the young man called for cash, which she refused, and she then took back the shawl to Mr. Forrester's. He sent it back by his young man netx day, and she heard no more till the summons. The plaintiff said the shawl had been worn, and in fact, would be a drug on his hands. He wished to have some rule laid down about taking back goods.—The Judge: There is no difference between accepting a shawl and a leg of mutton. It would be absurd to ask a butcher to take back meat at a week's end. The principle is the same.—Mrs. Pollard was ordered to pay for the shawl in a month. Forrester v. William Jones and wife.—The wife appeared and from her own showing, there had been several transac- tions between the parties at different times for sums of £3 4s., £ 2 9s., of which she had paid several sums on account, but leaving a balance of £ 2 18s. The wife was very volu- ble in her assertions that she did not owe the money, but his Honour thought differently, and made an order for payment at 6s. per month. Same against George Hier.—The judgment in this case had been made nine years ago, and the wife pleaded that the case was barred by the statute.—The Judge That is a most unhappy mistake people make. They fancy that keeping away for six years clears all debts, judgments, and liabilities. It is not so. Judgments are good for twenty years.—The wife then tried to argue that the goods were never had, but the Judge told her that was all nonsense.— An order had been made nine years since for £8 5s., out of which there had been paid .£1 148., leaving a. balance of £ 6 11s. The order would be 3s. 6d. a month. The defendant had been in America twice, and in gaol on several occasions for debt on judgment summonses. Caird (Newport) v. David and William Jones.—In this case an order had been made against the defendants jointly to pay 5s. a month.—J ust before the rising of the Court William Jones appeared, and said he knew nothiug of the debt, and never had any dealings with the plaintiff, either jointly with his brother or on his own account. He had been over to Rbymney on business, and being detained, could not return in time to answer the summons.—The Judge told him to pay 5s. into the office, the first instal- ment, which would stop an execution, and at the same time, give notice for a new trial, which application would be heard at the next court. The Dog. -Axi amusing interlude occurred by the erratic movements in the body of the Hall of a cur seeking its master, and yelping with delight at finding hlll1.-The man r I in blue was ordered to captivate the intruder or eject it. As there has been a razzia by the police against the canine race, the High Bailiff humorously observed that the con- stable should consign the animal to the limbo of the police cell, and if not owned, to the river's deep. WEDNESDAY. Wedding Feast.—Matthews v. Pug h.-Plaintiff and de- fendant are sisters. The daughter of plaintiff was lately married, and held the breakfast, or rfcther dinner, at the house of her aunt in this neighbourhood. Some potatoes and cabbage were sent up by plaintiff to defendant for the feast, and it was alleged that two sacks were sent up from Carmarthen to defendant on sale. The plaintiff sent at the same time one to her daughter, and now sued for the value of the two.—The bride, her mother and brother-in-law, all distinctly proved that there were two sacks besides the one for the feast.—Defendant indignantly and vehemently de- nied ever having more than the quantity actually consumed at the dinner, and called the cook, who stated that there was about 1 cwt. of potatoes at the bottom of the sack, with a few heads of cabbage, which were all cooked, and the dinner was on the table from one to four o'clock, and everyone ate and had beer as long as the potatoes lasted. — The J udge This is a sad specimen of family jars, and I make my order upon the evidence of the brother-in-law, which, if untrue, makes him a wilfully wicked man.—Order for (is. a month. Hannah v. Jane Griffiths, administratrix, &c., 19s.—The defendant said her husband died on the 3rd March last, and left nothing behind him. He was a tin smith. He had been very ill, and had no club. Her only means of supporting her husband was a few small things to sell.— Mr. Chisholm, who had purchased Mr. Hannah's round, said there was furniture in the house worth more than three times the value of his debt. — Defendant, half-crying: All that was there is there now. I am sure Mr. Hannah would not ask me to pay anything. -The Judge: It is a misfor- tune in the English law that there is no provision for the support of a widow out of her dead husband's assets. The whole of them are liable to the payment of his debts. In America it is different. There a certain time is given to the widow, and after her maintenance is provided for, the balance only is available to creditors. In this case Mr. Chisholm is the purchaser of a debt, and I shall aJjourn the case to next court for proof of assets. The Duck.—Mary Jones sued her neighbour, David Wil- liams, for damages for the loss of a duck. —From the evi- dence'it appeared, and defendant did not deny it, that he had in March last, hit the duck across the back, and did it because the duck was eating his chickens' food.—The Judge What is the value of the duck ?—It was suggested that 6s. a couple was the market price. Order for 3s. and costs.—Defendant: Well, if 1 must pay I must have the duck. Judge (with a smile) You killed it in March last. You can have the duck if you car find it. Matthews v. D Price.—Claim, £11 -This was an action brought to establish the right of the plaintiff to have his debt paid in full, under a deed of agreement by John Morgan, for the benefit of his creditors. The deed was made in consequence of Mr. Matthews withdrawing a judg- ment he had obtained, and in that deed (which was put in and proved), there was a proviso that Mr. Matthews should be paid first, and the other creditors in rotation, as they stood in the schedule—the debts, books, &c., were handed over to Mr. Price for collection, under an authority produced.—Mr. Price had collected some of the money, and as there was some dissatisfaction expressed by the other creditors, who wanted the money divided pro rata, Mr- Price, for his own protection, requested his Honour's deci- sion, as he did not want to pay twice over.—His Honour said that this really was not a deed for the benefit of cre- ditors such as would be affected by the bankrupt or insol- vent laws. It was, in fact, an agreement by which the parties bound themselves to take their money in the order of their names —Judgment for the plaintiff, Mr. Price to carry out the agrement. W. Harris against several debtors—amounts due for groceries.—The parties sued were mostly of the working class, some of whom were indebted in very large amounts. -The Judge expressed his great disapproval of giving credit to such large amounts to such persons, and practi- cally showed this disapprobation by ordering comparatively very small monthly payments, in some cases smaller even than the defendants themselves stated they could pay. Jury Case. — David Jenkins, brewer, George-town, v. Morgan James, Cefncoed-y-cymmer -Claim, fJ1 10s.— i Mr. Simons for plaintiff; Mr. F. James for defendant.— Jury Messrs. J. D. Williams, Scott, W. Morgan, D. Jones, and T. Roach.—Instating the case, Mr. Simons said j that the. defendant was a family connexion of one John Jones, of the Cefn, on his wife's side, but not a blood re- lation. He should produce the probate of John Jones's will, in which ample provision was made for the defendant, and would have to contend that the sum sued for proved part of the personal estate of the deceased, was not disposed of by him in his lifetime, and that the appropriation of that particular fund by the defendant Morgan James, was an illegal act, which he, "organ James, was bound to make good by repaying to the plaintiff, the residuary legato and one of the executors, £ 31 10s., the sum now sued for. The will of John Jones was put in and read, which bequeathed to Morgan James a house and £.5; to William James and Margaret his wife, a house and E5, and gave several other legacies, leaving the bulk of his property to his nephew, the plaintiff. -Mary Ann Jenkins, wife of the plaintiff, said My husband is the nephew of the testator. That is his i will; it is dated March 6th, 1866. He died on the 17th of April, and the willl was proved on May 17th. So far back as the 28th February, and on several subsequent occasions, my uncle told myself and husband, in the presence of my daughter, that there was £ 25 in a jug in the corner cup- board some notes deposited in a tea pot, a lease, and an agreement, and to mind this he also said that there were two sums of C3 and X3 10s. coming to him on the 3rd and 9th of April for interest, and he would wait for that and the price of a side of bacon sold to Margaret J ames before he came to live in my house, as I wanted him to do. I saw I him the night before his death he was searching his pUCK- ets, and in answer to me, said he missed the key of the corner cupboard. Margaret James produced it, and said ( she had got it from his other clothes. I went to the Cefn next day, on hearing he was dead. Mr. Henry Thomas next day, on hearing he was dead. Mr. Henry Thomas J came there and read the will. The cupboard was opened, and my husband said there was more than this in the cup- board. Morgan James said the money that was there uncle divided between me and Margaret on Sunday morn. ing about six o'clock. My husband went to the cupboard and drew out a lease, an agreement, and a deposit note by itself, and £2 in silver in a tobacco box. My husband I said it was very strange uncle had not shared the silver as well as the gold. The sum alto- gether was £ 32 10s., viz £ 25, £ 3, £ 3 10s. After the funeral, as some relations had arrived from Carmarthen and Monmouthshire, the will was read a second time at the Crawshay's Arms, on the Cefn. On the Friday following my husband asked Morgan if he was going to give up the money, his reply was-" what I've had I've had, what you've had you've had." The witness was crosi-examined at some length, but her evidence in chief was not shaken, and Mr. James got, at one fact (which seemed not much to his liking), that Margaret James was not present on the Sunday morning, and did not know how much she was to have for a fortnight after the old man's death.—Margaret Davies, step-daughter, aud|the plaintiff in their several ex- aminations corroborated in detail the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins.—This was the gist of the plaintiff's case, and for the defence Mr. James called the defendant: I am a collier, single, and live in my own house near the old man's house. My sister-in-law lives close by. For six weeks I used to sleep with him, changing my working clothes night and morning. On the Sunday morning before he died he made me get up about six o'clock, open the cupboard, and take out all the money and notes. I was sitting on the foot of the bed. I read the notes one by one to him, and he tied them up, and I put them back in the teapot. He told me to take out the purse. He counted out f29 10s. in gold into my hand. The money was put back in the purse, and he told me to take it and divide it between me and Margaret my sister-in-law. I put it in my pocket and went to bed again. I told Margaret I had got some money for her and me. It told Mr. Henry Thomas, the morning of his death. I had some of the old gentleman's money, but I did not say how much. I told my mate, William Gould, on the road all about it. — Cross-examined: There was no one in the house but uncle and me. He was quite sensi- ble, but fidgety like- did not tell Wm. James that half what I had was his wife Margaret did not tell Margaret till after Jenkins came, and then I did not name any sum. —Re-examined, Jenkins told me to give him the money and he would divide it between us. I told him he might when he got the chance of my money. Wm. Gould said defendant told him after the old man's death that he had £29 10s, for himself and Margaret. Morgan Hall spoke to hearing the old man that he would take c <re of Morgan and Margaret James for ther kindness. -Dr. Wills said that Mr. Jones was in imperfect senses, and capable of disposing of his number. Mr. Simons in a very exhaustive and argumentative address to the Judge and Jury conten- ded as at the outset that this manceverirg part of the testator assets that it had not been given but appropria- ted, and if there were any doubt on that point, the doubt must be for the plaintiff as in cases like the present -the very converse of the practice in cases of lar- ceny prevails.—The Judge This is a very proper case for the consideration of a jury-that the money belonged to the testator is admitted. The wife does make provision for both parties but it is possible that he having this money in the house might on the spur of the moment wish to give the young man aud hi" sister-in-law something additional as a reward for their attention.—The statement of the defendant is not attempted to be vouched, there was no one in the room and the only fact i1 he got and kept the money.—It will be for you gentlemen of the jury to decide whether or not the testator did before his death give the money to the defendant. The jury retired and in a few minutes returned with a verdict for the defendant, thus bringing a protracted trial of five hours divertion to a close at 8.35. p.m.

PENDERYN PETTY SESSIONS.

News

Cite

Share

PENDERYN PETTY SESSIONS. JUNE 16. —{Before E. J. Davies and T. J. Evans, Esqrs.) John Adams was charged by P.S. Jones with bein<* drunk and riotous at Cefncoedycymmer. The officer stated that defendant was very drunk in High-street, Cefn, about half-past seven the previous evening, and desirous of dis- playing his proficiency in the "noble art," and when told to go home quietly he refused, and was provided with lodg- ings in the police-station. Fined 10s. 6d. including costs, which was paid.

REVIEW.

News

Cite

Share

REVIEW. "GERMS OF THOUGHT." THIS is the title of a book published at the office of the Cardiff Times newspaper at Cardiff. It contains the sub- stance of four able sermons preached at different times by the author, the Rev. Edward Jones, of Pentyrch. These sketches are evangelical in their tone, and contain much vigorous thought eloquently expressed, and will repay all who will buy and read this little book. The author was a student at the Baptist College, Haverfordwest, and last May he examined the students of that college in mathe- matics. Mr. Jones, in the preface to these sermons, states that they are published at the request of many friends, and it is hoped they will do good to the intelligent young men of our congregations." The sermons were composed in the style of those published in the Homilist of Dr. David Thomas, and such being the case it is needless to say that they deal more in thoughts than words. There is in them much good material which, if beaten out, would make long discourses. Mr. Jones evidently believes more in good matter and deep thought than mere drapery and verbiage. Lvav.